12.07.2015 Views

The-papacy-its-history-dogmas-genius-and-prospects-wylie

The-papacy-its-history-dogmas-genius-and-prospects-wylie

The-papacy-its-history-dogmas-genius-and-prospects-wylie

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

—232 APOSTOLICITY, OR PETER'S PRIMACY.that he did. In the second place, the improbability ofPeter having been Bishop of Rome is so exceedingly great,amounting as near as may be to an impossibility, that wewould be warranted in denying it. And, in the third place,we do most certainly deny that Peter was the founder ofthe Church of Rome.With regard to the averment that Peter was Bishop ofRome, it is as near as may be a demonstrable impossibility.To have been Bishop of Rome would have been in plain oppositionto the great end of his apostleship.Peter had the world for hisAs an apostle,diocese, <strong>and</strong> was bound, by theduty which he owed to Christianity at large, to hold himselfin readiness to go wherever the Spirit might send him. Tofetter himself in an inferior sphere, so that he could notfulfil his great mission,—to sink the apostle in the bishop,to oversee the diocese of Rome <strong>and</strong> overlook the world,would have been sinful ;<strong>and</strong> we may conclude that Peter wasnot chargeable with that sin. Baronius himself confesseththat Peter's officedid not permit him to stay in one place,but required him to travel throughout the whole world, convertingthe unbelieving <strong>and</strong> confirming the faithful.* Tohave acted as the Romanists allege, would have been to deserthis sphere <strong>and</strong> neglect his work; <strong>and</strong> it would scarcehave been held a valid excuse for being " unfaithful in thatwhich was much," that he was " faithful inthat which wasleast." And if it would have been inconsistent on our principles,it would have been still more inconsistent on Romanistprinciples. On their principles, Peter was not only anapostle,—he was primate of the apostles ; <strong>and</strong>, as Barrowobserves, " it would have been a degradation of himself, <strong>and</strong>a disparagement to the apostolic majesty, for him to takeupon him the bishoprick of Rome, as if the king should becomemayor of London."-f*On other grounds it is not difficult to demonstrate theextreme improbability of Peter having been Bishop of Rome.* Baron, anno 58, sec. li. t Barrow's Works, vol. i. p. 699.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!